Paid editing, opinions on paid editing Options

[ebc123]

To state my opinion up front, what does it matter if you are paid to write about a person or organization or whatever and you follow the conflict of interest, neutral point-of-view, etc. guidelines, include most if not all the necessary references and basically produce an average to above average encyclopedic page?

For one thing there are many notable people out there who likely will never have a page written about them unless someone else takes the initiative to contact them or if they decide to contact someone to do it for them. I mean, it's nice and all to donate your time but unfortunately in this world the bills arrive every month. Again if you're able to be up front with a client and spell out the Wiki ground rules and from there produce a quality piece, what does it matter that you were paid?

For another thing it stands to reason that many if not most pages on Wikipedia are originally created and subsequently edited by people who have some abiding (some may say "slanted") interest in the topic. Why else bother with the effort?

So there's that. I'm wondering as far as paid editing what other people have to say. In addition to the above comments namely:

1. If you submit to Wikipedia's encouragement to divulge your paid arrangement, are you forever and automatically tagged with a "conflict of interest" heading?

2. If you divulge your paid status, are you now basically chum for other editors to tear your piece apart no matter how well it conforms to style and substance?

Thank you for any thoughts on this.

[ebc123]

My apologies “thekoser.” Thanks for the welcome. Your ebook looks interesting. I think it’s pricey for an ebook, especially since it doesn’t say anywhere how substantial it is (pages/words/etc.) But it looks interesting.

Thanks very much for all the info so far. It’s good to hear both sides and any details from experienced users.

If I could bother folks further (as answers often lead to more questions) I’m wondering:

As far as “wikieyeay’s” quote: “I would point out that unless they suspect something, they are not going to bother to check for multiple accounts.”

1. What (if anything) might cause them to suspect something as a Conflict of Interest if it doesn’t contain promo language or controversial subjects?

2. If they decide one account is in voilation, can they discover your other accounts through IP address, sockpuppets (whatever they are), or something else?

As far as “Multiple accounts are probably an unnecessary step, but that depends on how much money, etc., you have at stake.

I’d like to generate a fair amount of income so of course money/reputation would be a factor. Here is where question 2 above comes into play. It’s one thing to have a problem with one article and another thing to have a problem with 5, 10 or more.

I suppose saying “Paid editing is actually normally uncontroversial...” says a lot. As I mentioned in my first post, I fully intend on complying with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. For one thing I hate that hack public relations style writing. I won’t do it and my potential clients will know it up front.

I guess my greatest concern is one of those Dungeons and Dragons type zealots might eventually decide to pull some IRS/Spanish Inquisition investigation out of sheer boredom and the wheels come off. I don’t know how and if this happens. That’s why I’m posting here. I definitely find none of these answers on any other posts. Thanks again for any help!

[thekohser]

My apologies “thekoser.” Thanks for the welcome. Your ebook looks interesting. I think it’s pricey for an ebook, especially since it doesn’t say anywhere how substantial it is (pages/words/etc.) But it looks interesting.

Everything I do is substantial.

1. What (if anything) might cause them to suspect something as a Conflict of Interest if it doesn’t contain promo language or controversial subjects?

Well-written content about a commercial subject.

2. If they decide one account is in voilation, can they discover your other accounts through IP address, sockpuppets (whatever they are), or something else?

They'll use everything at their disposal. They'll checkuser the account in question, finding out every IP that it's used in the past 90 days. Then they'll back-trace all of the IPs found, to see if any other accounts have used them. Any that rise to even the faintest level of suspicion will also then be checkusered to discover more IPs. And so on. Yet, the Wikipediots will tell you that their site is one of the safest you can visit, because they don't "track" you with cookies or any personally-identifying information.

As far as “Multiple accounts are probably an unnecessary step, but that depends on how much money, etc., you have at stake.

I’d like to generate a fair amount of income so of course money/reputation would be a factor. Here is where question 2 above comes into play. It’s one thing to have a problem with one article and another thing to have a problem with 5, 10 or more.

My rule of thumb is to never conduct paid editing with one user account for any more than two different clients, and to use different IP addresses for each user account. In other words, you should have a notebook that tracks something like this:

1. User:Applesaucey One - working on Client A - use from coffee shop IP - Firefox
2. User:Bananamashey Two - working on Client B - use from Aunt Sally's IP - MSIE
3. User:Cherrypitter Three - working on Client C - use from Burger King IP - Chrome

If you live in a really rural area with few IP addresses to use and borrow, your efforts (if compromised) could all come tumbling down. You have to be really careful with this stuff, otherwise you can lose important User accounts. (Don't ask me about User:Cool3, okay?)

As I mentioned in my first post, I fully intend on complying with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. For one thing I hate that hack public relations style writing. I won’t do it and my potential clients will know it up front.

If you want to run a business with one hand tied behind your back, that's stupid; but you're entitled to try.

I guess my greatest concern is one of those Dungeons and Dragons type zealots might eventually decide to pull some IRS/Spanish Inquisition investigation out of sheer boredom and the wheels come off. I don’t know how and if this happens. That’s why I’m posting here. I definitely find none of these answers on any other posts. Thanks again for any help!

"Wheels coming off" is Wikipedia's middle name, kid.

Now, a question for you... How old are you, and what is the highest level of occupation you have ever ascended to?

[melloden]

Now, a question for you... How old are you, and what is the highest level of occupation you have ever ascended to?

Hahahaha. If you're a kid looking for some extra cash, don't bother. If you're an adult interested in using Wikipedia commercially, you might want to make it less obvious first by emailing Greg and continuing your plans privately because you sure seem to know nothing about Wikipedia's internal operations at all and I'm just waiting for the noob mistakes to happen.

[wikieyeay]

Now, a question for you... How old are you, and what is the highest level of occupation you have ever ascended to?

Hahahaha. If you're a kid looking for some extra cash, don't bother. If you're an adult interested in using Wikipedia commercially, you might want to make it less obvious first by emailing Greg and continuing your plans privately because you sure seem to know nothing about Wikipedia's internal operations at all and I'm just waiting for the noob mistakes to happen.

It's unlikely you'd notice. Even the most obsessive of wikifreaks can't keep track of all the new articles added to the Wikipediafiles each day. Add article, maybe somebody tags it for speedy deletion, dispute, then maybe you get an AfD, fight that, then setup a new account and follow the same procedure for another article. New accounts creaing new articles are nothing usual in wikiland.

And personally, if he is a kid looking for extra cash, well that seems better to me than if he's an adult. Wikipaedia just loves kids, and acting like one is just part of the game. If it goes wrong, that's no sweat, he was only doing it for pocket money.

Much better to do it that way than to assume Wikipedia is a venue for professionalism.

This post has been edited by wikieyeay: Sat 11th December 2010, 1:27pm

[melloden]

And personally, if he is a kid looking for extra cash, well that seems better to me than if he's an adult. Wikipaedia just loves kids, and acting like one is just part of the game. If it goes wrong, that's no sweat, he was only doing it for pocket money.

Much better to do it that way than to assume Wikipedia is a venue for professionalism.

From my brief experience with children on the site, most users hate kids. Except the really smart kind that don't act like kids. People are more likely to fall for the act and offer to help with a paid editing venture they don't know about if the writer acts like a polite adult and not a myspacer.

[SB_Johnny]

From my brief experience with children on the site, most users hate kids. Except the really smart kind that don't act like kids.

Well, the "opinion leaders" tend to be people who behave like children, so it's perhaps understandable (if you can wear the right shade glasses and screw your eyes real hard) that they would resent actual children playing a part in the game. I suppose they're just "grooming" the next generation of assholes.